fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landsc...

Swimming_trouble_718
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

I currently own 35 GM, sigma 85 1.4, 24-70 GM II, and 70-200 GM II. For bodies I have a a7rv and a a7cr

I�ve been using the 24-70 GM II along with the 70-200 GM II for my main landscape kit for a while now. I live in Colorado and have access to beautiful landscapes without much effort. Because of that landscape photography is one of my biggest photo interests (although I love shooting most things including portraits, architecture, wildlife, etc) and I strive for maximum quality. While these aren�t the lightest lenses, I�m fortunate to be younger and healthy so hiking with them is fine. The 24-70 GM II + 70-200 GM II combo has served me well, but there have been instances where 24 mm wasn�t wide enough which has lead me to explore my options.

Many landscape photographers seem to get by with a 16-35 and 70-200 combo, but after trying that with the 16-35 GM II I�m conflicted. I love the size, weight, zoom throw, etc, of the 16-35 but I think I�m so used to my 24-70 that the 35mm on the long end feels limiting for landscapes. Looking at my Lightroom catalogue I use the 36-69 range a lot and while I can definitely crop with my a7rv, the quality obviously won�t be the same when compared with something shot at that actual focal length. I also seem to be bothered more than is reasonable with the overlap between 24-35 and it�s caused issues with choosing when to use one lens vs the other or when to pack one lens vs the other.

I was going to keep the 16-35 since I enjoyed the image quality, rendering, size, etc. but it was having ghosting issues and I�m returning it. I�m now debating on whether I should reorder it or go for a different wide angle lens. It makes me wonder if I�d be better off with my 24-70 + wide prime (or 12-24 or 16-25) instead of 16-35. The 16-35 is a great lens that completes the classic trinity, but is it worth having when I already have a 24-70 and a 35 GM?

On the flip side something like a wide angle prime, 12-24, 16-25 are much less versatile when compared with a 16-35. I would think a wide prime/12-24/16-25 would almost necessitate carrying my 24-70 with me, whereas the 16-35 can definitely be a one lens solution for landscapes (maybe not for me and my style), architecture, cityscapes, travel, etc.

In the past I�ve tried a couple of options including the viltrox 16mm prime (heavyish and felt very limiting as an ultra wide prime), the 16-35 pz (felt less limiting, but I did not enjoy the power zoom) and the 28-200 (love the versatility, but wanted more image quality). But they didn�t work for me.

Some things I�ve considered:

16-35 + tamron 50-400: seems like a great 2 lens solution for landscapes, without much focal length lost between them. Would probably have to switch between two cameras a fair amount though. Not sure how the image quality of the 50-400 compares to my GM lenses.

Sony 20-70: I�ve been hesitant with this due to having the 24-70 GM II, but I know this lens is lightweight, sharp, and a great option for landscapes and hiking. It also goes to 20 mm.

Sony 16mm 1.8: lightweight, takes front filters, wide aperture would be useful for astro, but wide angle primes seem limited to me especially when compared with normal primes. also maybe not wide enough?

Sony 14mm: mostly same as Sonys 16mm prime, without easy filter usage, a bit wider obviously and more expensive.

Sony 16-25 or (sigma/tamron offerings): sounds like a great lightweight, sharp alternative to the 16-35. Obviously with a more limited focal length that may necessitate having a 24-70 or another long lens with me always.

Sony 12-24 or Sigma 14-24: these get great reviews, and this wider zoom range could be helpful for landscapes and architecture. Both lenses are pretty heavy and lack front filters.

Various manual focus wide angle primes: I�m not super familiar with voigtlander or laowa, but I know they have a number of great ultrawide options. I wouldn�t think manual focus would be an issue with an ultra wide angle.

I�m curious what others choose to do in this situation. I�m not opposed to spending more for great quality and I�m also not chasing the most lightweight set up either.

Jun 06, 2025 at 03:54 PM

Surfnsun
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

I�m willing to accept the size and weight of the 16-35mm GM II because it performs exceptionally well in the role it was designed for. Despite its larger footprint, the image quality, speed, and overall versatility more than justify the trade-off.

The 16-25mm f/2.8 G is my second option, and it brings a lot to the table, especially if portability is a priority. It�s noticeably smaller and lighter than the 16-35mm GM II, making it a more comfortable choice for travel, gimbal work, or long handheld shoots. While it doesn�t offer the same extended focal range or quite the same level of optical refinement as the GM II, the image quality is still excellent. It's sharp, well-corrected, and fast enough for most low-light situations.

Jun 06, 2025 at 04:54 PM

johncocci
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

I am a big fan of the 14mm GM lens. I use it along with my 20-70 as my hiking setup. I also own the 12-24 GM which I take along sometimes.

Jun 06, 2025 at 06:24 PM

fotografur
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

I'll tell you what I have and it works for me. I use to shoot a lot of wide stuff. 14-16mm and up. Looking back at all the images I liked they were mostly in the 24-50mm range. So now I'm a mostly normal range shooter.
This is my kit:

A7Rllla
A7RC

Sony 20mm G
Sony 24-50 G

And depending where I'm going 70-200GMll.

Jun 06, 2025 at 06:48 PM

tuomkok
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

I have the 20 G and it it is extremely good for the weight and price.

I sold my 16-35 GM because I rarely want to shoot wider than 20mm. And if I suddennly think about ultra wide, I have found composing a little more tightly with a 20mm prime usually produces better images than just going to 16mm.

This being said, for std zoom 24-70 GM II is very good at wide end. When stopped down the difference to 24 GM is marginal. However, when strictly shooting wide angle images 24 GM is the best lens I have used. 20 G feels a bit meh when compared to 24 GM.

Jun 07, 2025 at 02:48 AM

Peire
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

If uwa prime instead of something like 12-24f2.8 or 16-25/28/35f2.8,either 14/1.8 GM or little 16/1.G would be my choice to supplement something like GM 24-70/2.8 II+GM 70-200/2.8 II.

16/1.8 G is my last discovery - IQ very good/excellent - better than expected and compact size/little weight,67mm filter thread.Pricewise it's friendly too.14/1.8 GM is very good/excellent as well,but heavier,bulkier,no filter thread and pricey.

Edited on Jun 08, 2025 at 12:47 PM · View previous versions

Jun 08, 2025 at 02:40 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

As a Canon user who follows this board while considering a possible future move to Sony, I�m not in a position to have much to say about the specific models of Sony lenses you are looking at.

As a long-time landscape photographer I will share some thoughts about zoom focal lengths and how to combine them.

First, the questions of what focal length ranges you want to cover, whether or not you prefer to eliminate gaps in the range, and what lenses best cover this are quite subjective. In the end it doesn�t come down to a �right� answer but to what works best for you. No solution is perfect, but some will fit better than others.

My core landscape lenses are (Canon) 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms. After years of using f/2.8 zooms I now prefer to use f/4 zooms for landscape. I assume that they are available on Sony as htey are on Canon.

My minimal kit would be those two lenses in most cases. In my personal use case, the next most important lens is a 100-400mm zoom. We often hear that landscape is more about wide angle lenses, but there are a whole lot of landscape photographers who rely more on coverage at the long end than the wide end. That�s a personal, stylistic preference, so there�s no right/wrong answer here � you�ll have to figure it out for yourself.

I do carry a 16-35mm f/4 zoom in most cases. It is the least-used among my landscape lenses � I�d estimate that I use it for 5% or less of my work. For me, if I could only take three lenses, in most cases I would leave the 16-35 at home. (There are exceptions � for example, Utah canyons.)

For me, 24mm is almost always wide enough. For you? Hard to say.

If I felt that 16mm wasn�t enough (e.g. the 16-35mm zoom), for landscape work I would be more inclined to one of the 12-24 or similar zooms, since the compositional control provided by the zooms is much more important to final image quality than the debatable plus of the IQ from wide primes. (I shot primes for landscape for many years, but finally realized perhaps a decade and a half ago that zooms produced better results overall in nearly all cases.)

Good luck.

Jun 08, 2025 at 05:31 AM

mholdef
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

I recently changed systems so started with a blank slate, and went for the 50-150/2 with the 16-35/2.8.

Those two lenses replace my 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 135/1.8

Edited on Jun 08, 2025 at 09:51 AM · View previous versions

Jun 08, 2025 at 06:16 AM

MikeEvangelist
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

johncocci wrote:
I am a big fan of the 14mm GM lens. I use it along with my 20-70 as my hiking setup.

This combo is my primary travel/all-purpose kit. It's versatile, delivers great image quality, and is relatively compact and lightweight,

Jun 08, 2025 at 09:34 AM

adventure_photo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

If it helps to hear another perspective of someone who also lives in Colorado and does a lot of outdoor activities, here�s my take. I prefer as lightweight as possible but at the same time not sacrifice image quality as best as possible. I also do own the 16-35 GMII, 24-70 GMII, and 70-200 GMII and the only time I really use those lenses is if I�m adventuring from the car and only for short hikes. Otherwise I find them too heavy and bulky for hiking. Not because I�m not fit or too old, but from experience of doing it over the years. You�ll hike farther, faster and longer and more comfortably with less weight and gear weighing you down. Last year, I picked up the Sony 20-70 f/4 G and find this to be the best solution for a one lens setup venturing out. 20mm is plenty wide enough for most situations encountered and up to 70mm covers quite a range which you mentioned you like to shoot in. If anything, I�m usually needing something more telephoto to pair with the 20-70 in order to isolate and compress scenes, than I am needing something wider than 20. In those cases I will add the Zeiss Batis 135 which is relatively small and light compared to a 70-200 (even the f/4 version). I know you mentioned you didn�t like the Tamron 28-200 but my copy has great image quality and sharpness and I will also use that lens as well for hiking (or skiing or climbing). In that case, I will still sometimes want something to cover wide and will also bring along the Sony 20mm f/1.8 if I need the faster speed for say astrophotography or subject isolation, otherwise I really like the Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 or the Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 to pair with the Tamron as a wide angle option. Pretty small and light both, and great sunstars on those Voigtlanders plus awesome color and contrast. If you were going out with your 24-70 GMII, the Voigtlander 15mm pairs nicely as a wider option to it as well. As Peire mentioned that new Sony 16mm f/1.8 could also be a nice wide angle option to pair with your 24-70 GMII. The Zeiss Batis 18mm is another option but it�s a bit bulky despite being fairly light. Sometimes I like to just limit what I�m bringing and will also go with two or three primes, including the 21mm f/3.5 Voigtlander (or Sony 20mm) plus Sony 40G (or Batis 40), and Batis 85mm. I�d keep the 16-35 GMII if I were you because it is such a great lens for so many things, but I probably would not bring it hiking or on most outdoor adventures unless not much hiking is involved. Not sure if this helps, but I�m mostly thinking out loud and hopefully there�s something there for you to consider. Definitely recommend checking out Voigtlander lenses if you never have, they are very nicely built and render nicely plus they have electronic contacts for communicating with the camera.

Jun 08, 2025 at 11:51 AM

Craig Gillette
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

We're all different in interests and "locations" but living in Southern California (and getting out around California and the southwest mostly), for my outdoors shooting I seldom need wider than my 28-200. I have a 17-28/2.8 so almost as wide as the 16-35s. It gets more "urban" than outdoors use. I "added" a 20-70/4 but that was with an expectation of more "urban" than outdoors, too.

I've looked at but never gone for a 12-24 type, mostly for budget and weight issues, but also expecting it would get very little use. How much usage might one really expect for the widest end of a 12-24?

With the A7Rv and A7CR, there's crop space so maybe a smaller lighter wide prime might make sense for landscape or other infrequent uses, and there's the possibility of stitching, too. Assuming non-dynamic subject matter

Jun 09, 2025 at 12:34 PM

dakel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

I have two kits I choose between. Anything more than an hours hike away I will go with the lightweight kit. Otherwise, I'll go with my standard kit.

Lightweight: Sony 16-35/4 and Tamron 50-300. Great kit recommended on these boards by Ross Martin
I'm happy with the results from this kit although as you note it can be annoying have to change between lenses more frequently than I would like. Two bodies would fix that!

Standard kit: Sony 12-24/2.8 GM + Sony 24-105/4 + Sony 100-400 GM + 1.4xTC

Sometimes I may switch out the 24-105 for a Voigtlander 40/1.2 or if I want to go prime only, the Batis 18/2.8 + Vgt 40/1.2
I am not tempted in any way by the Sony 24-70 GM II because I have a good copy of the 24-105 which is obviously lighter than the 24-70.

Jun 09, 2025 at 04:27 PM

freaklikeme
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

dakel wrote:
I am not tempted in any way by the Sony 24-70 GM II because I have a good copy of the 24-105 which is obviously lighter than the 24-70.

Does the 32g really make the difference? I'd think the longer range and OSS are the big wins there.

Jun 09, 2025 at 05:46 PM

dakel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

freaklikeme wrote:
Does the 32g really make the difference? I'd think the longer range and OSS are the big wins there.

Oops didn't realize it was only 32 gram heavier. Thought it would be more. And yes you are correct, I don't need f/2.8 for landscape and the extra reach is more important to me. I kind of wished Sony had the equivalent of Nikon's 24-120

Jun 10, 2025 at 12:27 AM

StoneCrop
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

I grew up in Colorado, and have hiked in the Rocky Mountains since I was a kid. Now I live in Washington, but it has some nice mountains too

I am of the opinion that for forest shots 24 or 20 is about as wide as you�d need and 70 is definitely long enough. But for mountain shots having a telephoto that goes out to 300 or 400 is quite nice. Whether you get that with one of the Tamron lenses (50-300/400) or Sony (70-200 f/2.8 or 4 + teleconverter) is up to you and what makes sense for your other uses (70-200 gm ii is great for many things, and landscape is just one of them ).
I�ve found that when I need to go extra wide, I often want to go for ultra wide, and so I decided to take the Laowa 9mm/5.6 lens as one of 3 lenses that I took to Britain and Ireland for the past 2 months (the others being Sony 20-70 and sigma 90). That is definitely wider than I�d ever want for landscape but it captures some nature things great like looking up into a tree. Generally I�d say when shooting extra wide I�m being very intentional with my shot so I don�t mind swapping lenses for that. But I�d hate to always be swapping in the middle of my normal shooting range. Voigtlander 15 is an easily pocketable lens that can be added for not much weight, space, or money, and it has nice colors, sun stars and good flare resistance. It gaps nicely with your 24-70. There�s also some other small wide lenses (sigma 17/4, Laowa 14/4, etc, though I can�t speak to them specifically as I�ve never used them). If you did go the route of Tamron 50-x you might consider their 17-50 to pair with it. But probably the easiest and cheapest way to explore further telephoto is just to get a teleconverter for your gm ii zoom.

Jun 10, 2025 at 02:56 AM

zuru
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

OP: I am almost like you, NM instead of CO

, 24-70+70-200/TC.
I second the Voightlander 15mm, it's stellar and the sunstars are the best. I often carry it but I use it quite rarely....24mm is wide enough for most of what I shoot.
I have some upcoming hikes and I'm debating what to take. The 24-70GMII is so good that it's always a hard choice looking for a replacement. Often, 2 primes would be the same weight as the 24-70GMI...

Jun 10, 2025 at 08:49 PM

chriznatch
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

For landscapes, I�ve been using the 16-35 GM and the Sony 24-105. I also have the Sony 14mm and 20mm primes, which I�ll bring when I�m planning do astro photography.

I�ve thought a lot about the overlap between the 16-35 and the 24-105, and I recently picked up the 12-24 GM as an alternative on the wide end. The zoom is more flexible than the 14mm 1.8, and it�s less fiddly than switching from the 16-35 to the 14 every time I want a wider field of view. That matters on long days when I start to get tired and don�t feel like changing lenses.

On the other hand, the 12-24 is a behemoth and is no picnic to carry on a long hike. Also, the overlap between the 16-35 and 24-105 can be a good thing, because I don�t have to switch between them as often - something I very much appreciate. I have no choice but to switch between the 12-24 and 24-105 when I want a 35 mm photo.

In my case, the 12-24 may be overkill � and very expensive overkill at that. I can�t deny that it takes beautiful photos though. It�s sharp and it is capable of dramatic angles and compositions.

Jun 11, 2025 at 06:31 PM

StoneCrop
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

Another consideration - before buying more glass, do a hike with just the 24-70 (and 70-200 if you want it), and whenever you find yourself wanting to have a wider FOV, shoot a panorama with the 24-70. Ultra wide angle lenses give you the wide FOV but at the expense of strong perspective distortion (closer things seeming huge, farther things seeming tiny). Shooting panorama allows you to basically have a larger, curved sensor, and keep the depth relation of whatever the true FL you're using is. So it's more akin to the results from a medium format camera, for instance. Of course it's harder to visualize the composition, and requires more time in post, but it often produces images that are more true to life than the ultra wide-angle lenses.

Jun 14, 2025 at 10:14 AM

3catsinky
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · 24-70 + wide angle prime (or ultrawide zoom) instead of 16-35 for landscapes?

piss on that heavy glass. 20-70F4 and 70-200GII. the 16-25 is a winner. on an A7Cr or V, crop makes it much more versatile at the long end.

Jun 14, 2025 at 10:31 AM


FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell